The first fight is always more important than the rematch...

Jones vs Griffin

 

Rematch was MUCH more important.

 

Jones vs. Hopkins

 

That was the point I was making, it was in countenance to yours. Rematches are dirty business, IMO. The best of them are living in the past and trying to re-write history, instead of accepting their favourite fighters dont always win and moving on. The worst of them are fixes or otherwise not on the level.

Rematches are dirty pool, whether its sullying great fights (Castillo-Corrales II), being in denial over upsets (Turpin-Robinson I), or shaming the sport (Ali-Liston II).

 

yes. I agree.....but they mirror the core raison d'etre of boxing itself- they are lucrative. This is prize-fighting and what makes a better prize gets made.

Its filthy and has resulted in some of the stupidest fights- Oscar vs Chavez II was one of them- but we will always have them.

 

Of course, but I cannot like them.

Imagine if the evil which is the rematch had got its way on Douglas-Tyson, one of the great moments in history wouldve been forever tainted by Tyson winning an easy return.

 

I can't even find the inroad into understanding this....

Vazquez-Marquez 2-3
Ali-Frazier 3
Morales-Barrera 3
Arguellos vs EscaleraII
Robinson-Lamotta 2,3,4...
Pep-SaddlerII
Robinson-Basilio 2

And thats only the great fights, not the fights that helped us better understand who was better which for me is at least as important. Boxing history wouldn't be nearly as rich or decisive & satisfying without series'.

 

(clown ring rematches don't count)

 

I am just posting in cheek, Hut...

...except for the bit about Marquez being robbed against Vazquez. That happened.

 

OK, Im a big dummy and will go hide for a while until people have forgotten about this embarrassing incident.:scared2::goingmad:

 

why?

it gave no indication of what naturally goes down when the 2 fighters are paired up for the first time

 

But it gave good indication of what goes down when the 2 fighters are paired up for the second time

 

Very true but the second time is not as good of an indication what goes down when they meet for the 3rd time.

 

It's kind of ridiculous to apply a general rule here, as opposed to taking it on a case by case basis.

 

Good point. Many people forget this

 

Agreed.

 

two fighters only meet once

this isn't basketball, guys...no matter how badly you wish it was

 

This does not apply to the cases when two fighters meet two times

 

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/29BoqCMRBFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Agreed again. There's a very subtle difference.

 

This thread is awful ::

 

As long as the general rule makes Duran look like the quitting, overrated bitch he was, that's the rule I support.

Fuck Duran.

 

Don't make me come over there, Mike. I'll getcha!

 

it depends on the timing of the rematch too.

 

Of course. Erik Morales ftw. :bow:

 

yes, except for the ten zillion rematches and trilogies that have occured since the beginning of the sport

 

::

Cracking thread, this.

 

those fights don't count! :bangh: :goingmad: